Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. All of these countries have legitimate beefs with US foreign policy, and the meddling in their affairs. Iran was one of the most progressive democracies in the Middle East before the US, Great Britain and BP helped engineer a return of the Shah. Iraq wasn't as progressive, but was on track, until it ran afoul of US interests. Afghanistan had its issues, but between the Soviets and the American interest in their nation, and our backing folks with a LOT of munitions, with NO assistance once they ousted the Soviets, yeah, the Taliban went to work on whipping things into shape as they saw fit.

The anger in these countries isn't about our freedoms. It isn't about our faith. It isn't about Israel even--though in part, keeping these nations rife with internal struggles and under the thumb of theocrats without much interest in actually building or educating their people in a modern sense IS in Israel's interests--it's about actions. Actions that have impacted their nations fair severely.

Until we understand this, we aren't going to make any headway. At some point, WE need to apologize and try to set things right. Not by imposing MOAR sanctions, not by demanding compliant leadership, not by tearing down their governments, but by helping them achieve their own goals, and help them back into the circle of nations, and not just by shipping oil out, or letting contractors in.

These nations are the way they are today, because of things we did. To them. Years ago. Direct actions. Actions through intermediaries to give us "deniability." Actions that set their nations back generations. We did this, and the anger is real, and it is even justified.

Does this mean that the support of terrorism is just? Nope. But it is understandable. Like Chris Rock said, "you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and f*cking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand." These are folks who have turned to the only folks who have had any success in driving the point home, here and abroad. We created these monsters, and sadly, our actions in the last twenty years are only creating more.

At some point, we're going to have to come to terms with it. And then do something other than shoot the ones who have reached a limit to how much more meddling they'll stand, or the ones who've been raised by folks who are just sick and tired of the busllsh*t excuses that we've given over the years.

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution. Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them. That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

I wasn't kidding, in that the first step with all of these folks is an actual apology. In order to make any real headway, we have to actually accept that we've done them wrong, address that wrong, and work from there to help set things right.

If you make a mistake, is it "appeasement" to accept your own culpability? We created monsters in these nations. We fed them, we armed them, and we set them loose. We back monsters across the globe, and are then we dare to be surprised when they turn on us? In Afghanistan, we backed monsters, and armed them, and then abandoned them, with no skills at nation building, an economy and nation in ruins, and are we are surprised that these folks screwed up their country, and we KNEW what these folks were when we armed them to run up against the Soviets, and that was fine, because they were pointing guns at the folks we didn't like. We've backed monsters again and again. We've built them up, and then set them up against folks, and we are surprised that they harbor some ill will at their treatment?

At some point we have to accept our responsibility, and actually do something useful, as opposed to continuing the cycle of revenge, ill will, and resentment. That's not appeasement, that's being a f*cking adult about the damn things we've done. And have allowed to be done in our names.

Shooting more folks isn't going to make that resentment go away. It hasn't worked for Israel, it hasn't worked for the Russians, and the only way it's ever worked for the Chinese, is shooting EVERYONE in a region, and then sending in new folks to replace them. Taking responsibility is exactly the opposite of "letting them run free"; it is the only sane option.

I was opposed to the Soviet attempt to colonize Afghanistan because it was equivalent to the US "presence" in Vietnam. Back then it was hard to imagine anything like the Taliban happening anywhere; indeed it was hard to foresee what the Twelvers would get up to next door, which is bad enough.

Of course when you look at photos like these you've got to understand such "Westernized" people comprised the richest few percent of Afghans, the upper-middles who ran things for them, and their clerical help; such people who could took off when the Stalinists took over, long before there was any real need to.

Outside the biggest metro areas it was always medieval, full of mullahs farking goats.

Intelligent and stupid people, respectively, often examine the same facts, and arrive at different conclusions.Upon examining the facts at hand here, and intelligent person might conclude that religious fanatics and fundamentalists are an obstacle to human progress, and should be blocked from power as much as possible.A stupid person might conclude that "Muslims are bad", and that we need to bankrupt ourselves in a futile attempt to kill them all.Same facts - different brains.

Lsherm:hubiestubert: It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

Accepting responsibility isn't appeasement. What I find interesting about YOUR line of thought is that you think you can negotiate with a monster you created. You can't. You can negotiate with the next generation and that REQUIRES accepting responsibility, but the horse is out of the barn for the people we are currently fighting.

And we don't necessarily have to kill the current generation, since I agree that will make it worse. What we need to do is make them irrelevant by backing the next generation.

Negotiation is only possible when there is a solid and coherent leadership.

There isn't with Jihadists. There isn't with disparate tribes, and factions either.

We can only negotiate when there is stability enough for a leadership to cohere. Iran is a different animal than Iraq. Iran, despite its problems, IS a nation that is united and with a solid leadership, and one that has a long memory. Iraq? We broke that country, plain and simple. We broke it, we let it dive into factionalism and chaos, and then we wound up with more strife than we went in--and worse, we erected a weak leadership that is likely to fall over entirely soon enough, and plunge the nation into the hands of folks who REALLY dislike not just us, but a damn lot of each other, and with grudges aplenty. Afghanistan? Barely united even before the Soviets, and with deep internal squabbles, and after its abandonment, and their ill use by the US, those oddly enough, exploded all over the place, and with a LOT of weapons and grudges anew.

Stability has to come from investing not just in troops, but investing in infrastructure, education, and forging alliances not just with us, but with one another. We have to offer more choices than guns, God, or glory. And that's not going to come about with putting vulture capitalists in charge of reconstruction. That's not going to come about with putting private contractors out to do "security" without oversight and immunity from prosecution. The approach has been to pacify in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to sequester in Iran, and that's just not cutting it. It's only making folks more entrenched. We need better solutions than just hunting down folk's brothers and sisters and cousins, and asking them to choose between family and a nebulous "better tomorrow"--especially given that these folks have a fair experience already with such plans and discussions. We need to help them find that stability, and find their own path.

We got into a lot of this mess, when we looked the other way when the Brits dismantled Iran's democracy. We looked the other way, when we armed the Taliban, and set them loose on the Soviets. We looked the other way, when Iraq was belligerent to Iran, who we really didn't like at the time.

With Iran, we need to acknowledge our culpability. That will go a long ways with the people, and their leadership. Theirs is a long standing and valid anger. With Afghanistan, our neglect fractured the nation and our tinpot crazies made it into their own image, which we accepted when we called them "freedom fighters." We need better investment, they need real education, and better opportunities than selling poppies to feed their families up in the hills, and real security in their own nation. Iraq we just shattered, plain and simple, and that one is a convoluted issue, because they aren't uneducated hill people, and they likewise know exactly what was done, and why, and ultimately, we are going to have chase down a lot of them, because before we went in, they actually weren't terribly radicalized. We've given them a few reasons to be so now, and our involvement let in a lot of folks who weren't in the mix before we came.

None of these nations needs "appeasement" but all of them need us to be gottverdammt adults when we go to the table, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to actually build a damn table for them to sit down at first.

hubiestubert:But it is understandable. Like Chris Rock said, "you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and f*cking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand."

Don't even post that shiat, hubie, not even as an aside. That quote right there is the reason I farking hate Chris Rock. Somebody understands how a person could kill their ex? That's funny? That's not a joke, not in any goddamn universe anywhere. That's pathetic. She wasn't his wife anymore, she didn't get that kind of money from him, and they were divorced. Whatever she did with her life after that was HER LIFE. Unless, of course, you see things like OJ Simpson did.

My ex said that very thing to me after I left him--"Now I understand how people murder their exes"--and I assure you, it is never a joke.Now you all carry on with your Afghanistan flamewar, I'm out of here.

EmmaLou:While on vacation, I watched a story on AlJazeera about two Afghan women who had been attacked by their husbands. One had her lips and nose cut and was severely beaten, the other was killed and chopped into pieces. The police and everyone knew who committed the crimes, but both husbands are still free. They will likely never face punishment.

WTF? I don't even know what to say about how sick and wrong that is.

This story brought to you by Religion ® . Religion, when you need an excuse to do something stupid..

/Actual mileage may vary. Price does not include tax, title, and license. Some assembly required. Each sold separately. Batteries not included. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. If conditions persist, contact a physician. Keep out of reach of children. Avoid prolonged exposure to direct sunlight. Keep in a cool dark place.

There is no place for religious fundamentalism in the 21rst century. I usually say no place for religion but that Pope Francis guy seems to be the genuine article which is a welcome change, maybe just maybe if there was more of him and less Westboro Baptist church-like things roaming around things would be better.

Son of Thunder:jso2897: During the Soviet era, the armed forces wore dress uniform hats tghat were quite large. You can see the same style echoed in the North Korean military still, today.I therefore conclude that big hats are an essential and indispensible feature of Communist philosophy, and that communism can't be communism without big hats.

Compare the number of people imprisoned and killed by those regimes for wearing small hats to the number imprisoned and killed for being religious, then get back to us with your theory.

Categorize people by any means you like - and you will find that Stalin killed vast quantities of any category of people you'd care to name. You can single out religious people because you think it serves your argument, but it's a meaningless distinction of your own manufacture.Just like my meaningless distinction of big hats. Short version - you missed the point. I was making an example of a bad argument - not an argument.

Son of Thunder:jchic: When was the last time religion actually improved a country?

Inventing science.Creating the first modern university.Abolitionism.First-wave feminism.Civil rights Movement.

You're welcome.

Religion didn't invent science... Science was 'invented' when religion, philosophy, and superstition were disentangled from explanations about things.

The first 'modern university' taught religion, medicine, and engineering. It wasn't created by religion, it was created by society to teach the things that were important to them at the time (which included more than religion).

Abolitionism was not a product of religion either. Some religious groups did choose to believe that slavery was against their beliefs, but largely the cause of abolitionism was carried by humanist ideals, not religious ones.

First-wave feminism was not a religious movement nor was it created by religion. There were many women and men who inspired first wave feminism and not one of them cited religion as the reason.

Finally the Civil Rights Movement was also not a product of religion. It was a movement by various people from various places that decided that equal rights were important to them and that they were willing to engage in non-violent civil demonstration in order to obtain those rights.

Just because you're a fan of religion doesn't mean you can attribute things to religion that have no basis in fact. None of the things you listed were things that religion gave to society... not one of them. If you want to improve people's opinions about how religion has improved society, you might try to stop lying about it. You're hurting your cause more than you're helping it.

bigworld2000:Throughout 1978 and 1979, the communists in charge of Afghanistan tried to extend the idea of women's rights out into the countryside and set up literacy schools for rural Afghan women. This is what really freaked out the Mujahadeen and the mullahs, who attacked the schools and killed many of the students and teachers. That's when the government in Kabul called in the Soviets, who sent in their military to quell the fundamentalists at the end of December 1979.

"The Communists were trying to change the law of God. They wanted to destroyIslamic traditions -- to rid Afghanistan of poverty and make everyoneequal. This is against the law of Islam -- God has decided who is richand who is poor. It can't be changed by Communists. It's beyondimagination."Sahar Gul, Mullah Laghman Province (CNN Cold War: Soldiers of God, 1998)

One of the Soviet rationales for the invasion was to enforce their widespread distribution of foodstuffs, such as flour, using ideas that superseded the cultural trade norms. There were parts of the northeastern provinces that would regularly have local famines because they didn't get regular rain and the Mullahs used food shortages as a means to maintain the warlord feudal state. They just wouldn't trade with their enemies, and allies that did, would be denounced or attacked.

It was common for one village to block streams and hoard the water, thereby robbing the folks downstream of a means to water their crops. It was also common to raid grain storage of neighboring Clans and swipe it. The feud was a major part of their culture and some had been maintained for centuries. They relied entirely on streams to water crops and their animals. When those streams dried up the common belief was that someone upstream was blocking it and hoarding it. It was probably true more often than not. Water warfare was common in rural Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Mullahs couldn't deal with the fact that a well-fed population wasn't so obedient to them if they could not control the food supplies that did exist when things got bad, because everyone had to support them, which basically means the Mullahs were hoarding food. they always ate well, even as the folks in their local districts would often be short of food. This was pointed out to the local folks by the Soviets. This had the effect of reducing the motives for the feuds that the Mullahs had carefully maintained for millennia over water rights. The warrior culture was the dominant paradigm in the rural, tribal areas before the communists took over and promptly started robbing the richer folks in the cities.

It's a simple thing to piss off an entire culture, when you start forcing the rich folks to pay attention to the poor folks, especially the farmers that kept their bellies full.

jso2897:During the Soviet era, the armed forces wore dress uniform hats tghat were quite large. You can see the same style echoed in the North Korean military still, today.I therefore conclude that big hats are an essential and indispensible feature of Communist philosophy, and that communism can't be communism without big hats.

Compare the number of people imprisoned and killed by those regimes for wearing small hats to the number imprisoned and killed for being religious, then get back to us with your theory.

FarkQued:EmmaLou: While on vacation, I watched a story on AlJazeera about two Afghan women who had been attacked by their husbands. One had her lips and nose cut and was severely beaten, the other was killed and chopped into pieces. The police and everyone knew who committed the crimes, but both husbands are still free. They will likely never face punishment.

WTF? I don't even know what to say about how sick and wrong that is.

That is Farked up, however so is watchin aj aka terrorist.tv.

AlJazeera, from what I've seen, is less biased that most American "journalism". It's more like watching an Arabian BBC than an Arabian FOX News.

/of course, you probably think the BBC is part of an evil liberal media conspiracy so I guess I'm not helping

While on vacation, I watched a story on AlJazeera about two Afghan women who had been attacked by their husbands. One had her lips and nose cut and was severely beaten, the other was killed and chopped into pieces. The police and everyone knew who committed the crimes, but both husbands are still free. They will likely never face punishment.

How 'bout we just stand off at a safe distance and watch 'em fark each orther?

Like Syria, you mean?

Syria is farked if we do something and farked if we dont. The US can not solve that riddle. Sucks that a civil war is going on there but there is a lot of bloodshed going on all over the world. Hell look at Africa. Hell look at Mexico, which is actually connected to the US. 78,000 people have died in Mexico since the drug war kicked off in 2006. Syria death toll is higher in a shorter time yes but still thats not the point. What would you suggest the US or the world do for that matter on Syria? There is not an easy answer. The main reason why Syria gets more news coverage is because its neighbor is Israel. They've got to be worried about any outcome in Syria. If Bassard wins he will strike Israel for them striking Syria. He has promised that on worldwide news. If Bassard loses then you've got the potential for a terror network to do harm to Israel too.

I would suggest that Saudi with money and Turkey with a huge army invade and destroy Assad in under a week and then divide the territory between them. The secular former Syrians can head north, the nutty Wahhabis south and the Alawites can fark themselves.

I realize odds are excellent that you're trolling, but don't for a second think that some short-dicked, embittered, god-addled loser isn't thinking "putting women back in their place" isn't an excellent idea.

Hickory-smoked:jchic: When was the last time religion actually improved a country?

Most of those people in those photographs were already Muslim.

The problem with your statement is that the Taliban is not simply an example of religion, but rather religion combined with ultra-nationalist politics and xenophobic paranoia. Equating all faith to extremist fundamentalism oversimplifies the issues and makes you dumb.

But to answer your question, I'll refer you to Patton Oswalt.

One of the best critiques and examinations of the drive towards Fundamentalism in ALL of the People of the Book put to pen for a long while. Fundamentalism coupled with nationalism is not a feature of Islam alone, and that's something that a lot of folks forget. When you couple nationalism with Fundamentalism you get folks who equate their national interests with the backing of God, and thus, anyone who opposes you is opposing the Will and the Word, and that makes it for damn sure easy to ignore a lot of folk's right to exist. Be that Christian, Jewish or Muslims. And that is what we face, along side thugs and opportunists who simply borrow the trappings so that they can cage more sh*t from those who don't have the access to guns that they do.

Lsherm:hubiestubert: Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. All of these countries have legitimate beefs with US foreign policy, and the meddling in their affairs. Iran was one of the most progressive democracies in the Middle East before the US, Great Britain and BP helped engineer a return of the Shah. Iraq wasn't as progressive, but was on track, until it ran afoul of US interests. Afghanistan had its issues, but between the Soviets and the American interest in their nation, and our backing folks with a LOT of munitions, with NO assistance once they ousted the Soviets, yeah, the Taliban went to work on whipping things into shape as they saw fit.

The anger in these countries isn't about our freedoms. It isn't about our faith. It isn't about Israel even--though in part, keeping these nations rife with internal struggles and under the thumb of theocrats without much interest in actually building or educating their people in a modern sense IS in Israel's interests--it's about actions. Actions that have impacted their nations fair severely.

Until we understand this, we aren't going to make any headway. At some point, WE need to apologize and try to set things right. Not by imposing MOAR sanctions, not by demanding compliant leadership, not by tearing down their governments, but by helping them achieve their own goals, and help them back into the circle of nations, and not just by shipping oil out, or letting contractors in.

These nations are the way they are today, because of things we did. To them. Years ago. Direct actions. Actions through intermediaries to give us "deniability." Actions that set their nations back generations. We did this, and the anger is real, and it is even justified.

Does this mean that the support of terrorism is just? Nope. But it is understandable. Like Chris Rock said, "you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and f*cking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he ...

So appeasement? That's your answer?

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution. Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them. That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

What is being spoken of really is not a hard concept to grasp. Stop being d*cks to people abroad, and you will find after some time that you have fewer enemies.

some people like to say things like america views itself as the worlds police. If that is the case than it would be in americas best interest to stay out of other countries domestic disputes.

lets face it everybody knows when you get in the middle of a domestic squabble the odds of them both turning on you are pretty good.

these days I think of america as being like an international version of george zimmerman, in that it likes to pick fights and escalate them. Afterwards claiming to be the victim in the situation. Most sane people dont really buy that shiat.

The predominantly Christian west has created a society where people are treated much more fairly. We chastise the imperialism, but when we learn what the alternative is is most of the world it is horrific, oppressive and really abusive to the dignity of people. Sounds good to let Muslims spread throughout the world, but look what they do when in power. It makes the inquisitions and the ongoing guillotine of the French "enlightenment" seem like two 7 years in a slap fight. Time to look at the whole historical truth and not the narrative predominantly taught.

cryinoutloud:hubiestubert: But it is understandable. Like Chris Rock said, "you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and f*cking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand."

Don't even post that shiat, hubie, not even as an aside. That quote right there is the reason I farking hate Chris Rock. Somebody understands how a person could kill their ex? That's funny? That's not a joke, not in any goddamn universe anywhere. That's pathetic. She wasn't his wife anymore, she didn't get that kind of money from him, and they were divorced. Whatever she did with her life after that was HER LIFE. Unless, of course, you see things like OJ Simpson did.

My ex said that very thing to me after I left him--"Now I understand how people murder their exes"--and I assure you, it is never a joke.Now you all carry on with your Afghanistan flamewar, I'm out of here.

Understanding the source of anger is the first step to overcoming it. Justification is built up to give it vent, but you have to understand the source before you can get over that hill and deal with the real issues. Understanding the source of anger isn't justifying it, or accepting the results as justified. We can't afford to NOT understand where the anger comes from in these cases. Not in the Middle East, not in divorce court either. Too often we ignore the sources of folk's feelings of slight, how they feel they've been thwarted, or wronged, and that often leads folks to feel that they have to take matters into their own hands. It makes things worse to not acknowledge where the anger comes from.

jaybeezey:DrPainMD: Would that work if a foreign country did to us what we've done to them? Would YOU cooperate with them? Me, I'd learn how to build a remote-controlled bomb and set it by the side of the road, waiting for them to drive by. And I'd also kill any Americans who cooperated with them. Unlike hubiestubert, I think that their terrorism and attempts at terrorism is totally justified... how else can you fight an enemy that is 100 years more technologically advanced and has 10,000 times the money to wage war with? You wouldn't box by the rules if you fought Joe Frazier in his prime, would you?

So it's ok to blow up people who you feel have slighted you? I'm just trying to understand the way the left thinks.

There are worse things going on in these countries than them fighting us. Jihadists kill more Muslims than foreigners. By far. Between the practice of declaration of takfir--declaration of infidel status, and often by a layman as opposed to an Imam--and just the internal power struggles, and just plain thuggery to keep power, these folks are doing a damn fine job at keeping their countries divided and expending a lot of time, effort, and ammunition terrorizing one another. That's our legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is part of why we need to do more to engage these populations, and fix the wrong we've done them, because our efforts have set them against not just us, not just against foreign interests, but deepened divides within their nations to the point where they are perfectly willing to exterminate one another, and for incredibly short term gain.

Most of the folks in these countries just want to get on with their lives. Unfortunately, they've got a lot of neighbors who have guns, who have their sights set on righting wrongs, and grabbing as much stuff as they can to line their own pockets, and remake the country in an image that sounds really cool on paper, but maybe hasn't been thought through very well. Or worse, they've thought through it, and said, "Yeah, I'm good with this sh*tty situation, because I'mma get paid." That we helped slide a lot of those guns into their hands makes it our issue. That we inspired folks to slide guns into their hands, that makes it our issue. The best way to deal with the insurgents, has been to engage the population. To help make their lives better, directly. To show them respect, respect their traditions, and actually BE in their neighborhoods, along side them. To help them rebuild, to help them reform, to give them something other than just aid money--which often gets siphoned off long before it hits the neighborhoods--but to help them foster an atmosphere where they can build something other than just brick and mortar. Folks need economic opportunities. They need safe neighborhoods, clear of thugs who are just looking for an easy payday, and live out their fantasies of fighting "the West."

We have to engage folks, not just in a tactical fashion, and shoot motherf*ckers, but to help them build more, to forge their own plans, and to help them defend it from the opportunistic bastiches both from the West, and the thugs who see opportunity rising from aid coming in--and the factionalistic bastiches who see opportunity to get some payback for grief years ago.

I understand the drive to just want to level sh*t, because that's easier than the real job.

Starting your argument with a buzz-word meant to create negativity based on nothing other than the buzz-word is not going to get you very far. It's like using the word "denier" in a climate change thread... you lose all credibility the second you say it.

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution.

Umm... we ARE the rabid dog.

Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them. That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

Would that work if a foreign country did to us what we've done to them? Would YOU cooperate with them? Me, I'd learn how to build a remote-controlled bomb and set it by the side of the road, waiting for them to drive by. And I'd also kill any Americans who cooperated with them. Unlike hubiestubert, I think that their terrorism and attempts at terrorism is totally justified... how else can you fight an enemy that is 100 years more technologically advanced and has 10,000 times the money to wage war with? You wouldn't box by the rules if you fought Joe Frazier in his prime, would you?

So it's ok to blow up people who you feel have slighted you? I'm just trying to understand the way the left thinks.

Bslim:Son of Thunder: Bslim: Lee451: jchic: When was the last time religion actually improved a country?

I think the Soviet Union is excellent example of what atheism does to a country. Or China under Mao. Cambodia under Pol Pot?

Yeah cause it was all about the atheism.

Funny, your use of the word "all". No, those regimes were not ALL about atheism, any more than (as has been pointed out in this thread) the situation in Afghanistan is ALL about Islam. But it takes a special kind of willful myopia combined with all-or-nothing simplemindedness to pretend that the existence of one factor means that we can ignore another factor when explaining a situation.

Okay, why don't you explain it, chief.

Shall I teach you the entire Torah while you stand on one foot while I'm at it?

jso2897:LewDux: jso2897: So, you are saying that if, over time, Americans were to abandon religion, we would end up living like the Soviets in the thirties? Merely by virtue of having abandoned religion? Interesting theory - I'd be fascinated to hear you attempt to support it.But I'll bet I won't.

I'm saying that Soviet Atheism was built on good old religious (excuse my French) memes. Trinity, Third Rome, etc

Yeah. Couldn't have had anything to do with Stalin being acutely paranoid and wanting to eleiminate anyone who had any power or influence he couldn't completely control.Because communists are honest people, and always give their true reasons for doing things.

Instead of inventing wheel, ever-practical (compared to ore idealistic Lenin) Stalin repainted old one. He also used Church to control believers instead of eliminating it. There's old Soviet joke about Orthodox Pope who refused to borrow chairs for important Party celebration, until local Party head threatened to expel him from party./Link

Bslim:Lee451: jchic: When was the last time religion actually improved a country?

I think the Soviet Union is excellent example of what atheism does to a country. Or China under Mao. Cambodia under Pol Pot?

Yeah cause it was all about the atheism.

Funny, your use of the word "all". No, those regimes were not ALL about atheism, any more than (as has been pointed out in this thread) the situation in Afghanistan is ALL about Islam. But it takes a special kind of willful myopia combined with all-or-nothing simplemindedness to pretend that the existence of one factor means that we can ignore another factor when explaining a situation.

jso2897:So, you are saying that if, over time, Americans were to abandon religion, we would end up living like the Soviets in the thirties? Merely by virtue of having abandoned religion? Interesting theory - I'd be fascinated to hear you attempt to support it.But I'll bet I won't.

I'm saying that Soviet Atheism was built on good old religious (excuse my French) memes. Trinity, Third Rome, etc

Funny thing, it's actually the religion of progressivism that Hillary, and her fellow travelers follow that will keep these women under the thumb and cover of the hajib. Also under the mullahs too.

We will be lectured that this another multicultural event, that the old white,guys will have to learn to live with.

Drag out the Berkeley educated muslim woman with on MSNBC for glowing commentary on the liberation of submission.. Sort of the same thing as the millionaire communists living in NYC. Were the go to decoys,rather than interviewing some peasants living under the enlightened rule of the Party.

The threat is not from the tea party, wanting their property taxes lowered or some parents spending quality time teaching their own kids at home.

( Otherwise, if the indoctrination is the problem ! Time to close down those Jewish summer camps and other "specialised schools.) Is Holder looking into the local after school programs at the Mosque ?

Nope! It the self loathing mindset and blind trust in our "historical candidates" that puts all in danger.

PS. I didn't vote for McCain ,and couldn't stand Bush. I would actively work against any Bush or Clinton running for office.

How 'bout we just stand off at a safe distance and watch 'em fark each orther?

We did that in Afghanistan, and we got 9/11.

On the other hand, we did that with the Iran-Iraq War (OK, we helped Saddam a little), and that worked nicely for us. Let 'em beat each other up. Even after they stopped fighting, they had a cold war going on that helped keep Iran in check.

ghare:Prophet of Loss: Progressive Afghanistan was never a majority which is made of warring fanatical tribes. Sure they saw some progress in major cities, but the majority of the population was never on board.

T-Boy:A lot of self-loathing in this thread. Perhaps you should travel to the Middle East and walk around appologizing. Don't call the embassy when you make your spiritual connection with your fellow peace loving friends.

You sound like the kind of guy who breaks something at a party and then leaves after justifying it as the hosts fault.

OscarTamerz:The fact of the matter is that the democratization of power is what led to the widespread takeover of conservative islam in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. The revolutions that over threw the Shah, the Soviets and Saddam were what allowed the conservatives to come to power. Look what happened to Egypt. They elected that whacko Morsi and he appointed the guy responsible for machine gunning scores of Swiss tourists to be his minister of tourism. The military saw how that would play in the west and kicked his ass out.

Paul Theroux's The Great Railway Bazaar was published in 1977 just before everything went to shiat and it was about his train trip from London to Calcutta crossing through Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Still a great read and an object lesson in democracy. Nobody ever remembers Hitler was democratically elected.

Uh, wtf are you on about? Iran had a democratic government until the US engineered the ascent of the Shah. Iraq never had a revolution at all. The US invaded, raped the country and culture and left a power vacuum. Afghanistan had a democratic government until the Soviets engineered a Communist government. Which in turn catalyzed their revolution. None of your three examples even remotely support your position.

A lot of self-loathing in this thread. Perhaps you should travel to the Middle East and walk around appologizing. Don't call the embassy when you make your spiritual connection with your fellow peace loving friends.

Throughout 1978 and 1979, the communists in charge of Afghanistan tried to extend the idea of women's rights out into the countryside and set up literacy schools for rural Afghan women. This is what really freaked out the Mujahadeen and the mullahs, who attacked the schools and killed many of the students and teachers. That's when the government in Kabul called in the Soviets, who sent in their military to quell the fundamentalists at the end of December 1979.

"The Communists were trying to change the law of God. They wanted to destroy Islamic traditions -- to rid Afghanistan of poverty and make everyone equal. This is against the law of Islam -- God has decided who is rich and who is poor. It can't be changed by Communists. It's beyond imagination." Sahar Gul, Mullah Laghman Province (CNN Cold War: Soldiers of God, 1998)

Starting your argument with a buzz-word meant to create negativity based on nothing other than the buzz-word is not going to get you very far. It's like using the word "denier" in a climate change thread... you lose all credibility the second you say it.

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution.

Umm... we ARE the rabid dog.

Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them. That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

Would that work if a foreign country did to us what we've done to them? Would YOU cooperate with them? Me, I'd learn how to build a remote-controlled bomb and set it by the side of the road, waiting for them to drive by. And I'd also kill any Americans who cooperated with them. Unlike hubiestubert, I think that their terrorism and attempts at terrorism is totally justified... how else can you fight an enemy that is 100 years more technologically advanced and has 10,000 times the money to wage war with? You wouldn't box by the rules if you fought Joe Frazier in his prime, would you?